Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parent Special Education Training topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board rejects IDEA‑funded statewide parent special‑education training
Summary
Board members debated and ultimately declined to use IDEA funds to subsidize a statewide 8‑week parent advocacy training led by an outside contractor, citing scope, cost and role concerns; the substitute and committee motions failed in close votes.
The Utah State Board of Education considered a proposal to use IDEA set‑aside funds to subsidize scholarships for parents to attend an eight‑week EPIC/IEP advocacy intensive led by consultant Karen Cunningham.
Member Boggas moved a substitute that would have dedicated $30,000 in IDEA funds (plus $2,000 for materials shipping) to provide up to roughly 199 parent scholarships and open any remaining slots to educators. Supporters said the training, which has been used in other states and previously in Utah for transition conferences, equips families to engage more effectively in IEP meetings.
Opponents raised concerns about precedent, scope and accountability. Members asked whether the state board should use federal IDEA dollars to pay for parent training delivered by an external contractor, whether the program should be limited to parents rather than educators, and whether USB staff could deliver similar training in‑house or partner with the Utah Parent Center. Board members also asked whether there was a minimum attendance threshold and whether funds would be expended if parents registered but did not complete the full eight‑week course.
After extended discussion and multiple procedural motions, the substitute motion failed and the committee motion to approve the funding also failed in a final recorded vote (8 opposed, 6 in favor). Several members said they supported parent training in principle but could not support the specific funding request or the price quoted for the outside contractor at this time.
Why it matters: the vote highlights a recurring tension for the board — whether and when to use agency resources to provide or subsidize parent services versus relying on LEAs or community providers. Several members recommended exploring other models (in‑house training, working with the Utah Parent Center, or a different procurement approach) that might be less costly or more scalable.
What’s next: staff and board members said they will continue to discuss parental‑advocacy training options and possible lower‑cost or district‑delivered alternatives. No IDEA funds were committed at the May 15 meeting.
Quote: "If parents need training, let's look in a more holistic way for the best way to do this," Member Lear said, urging consideration of in‑house options and broader procurement.
Ending: The board rejected the specific IDEA-funded proposal but left the door open to alternative approaches to support parent advocacy and special‑education literacy across the state.
